Okay, then, I'll call it "pro-CCP propaganda." Does that satisfy your weak semantic nit-picking? Propaganda is a separate issue from FACTS. It is possible to compose a statement of nothing but facts, and still have it be propaganda. It's a question of context, perspective and implication. You know that as well as anyone, given how careful you are to try to buttress your pro-CCP propaganda efforts with as much fact as possible, and so dress them up as serious, impartial economic analyses. Heck, if you could restrain your bias to the point of actually living up to that standard, your output might not even qualify as propaganda. Too bad you can't. So what? You guys aren't behaving "normally." His post was a string of unsupported assertions, many of which are controversial, and many of which are outright incorrect on their face. It was not a serious, factual post, but a propaganda exercise. I accurately described it as such, and likewise refused to indulge your desire that such blatant propaganda be treated as serious scholarship. His output - and yours - got exactly the response they deserve: outright dismissal as propaganda that does not merit serious analysis. If you're such a principled stickler for facts and the support of assertions, why haven't you demanded RoccoR support any of the (wrong, or at least controversial) claims he made? The same claims that you yourself make, without any serious substantiation? Instead, you rush to his defense and erect a blatant double-standard that you demand I subject myself to. It's a transparently bullshit tactic, and if you think you're going to cow me with your preposterous claims to be unbiased, or dealing in fact and reason, then you have another thing coming. You're a callow propagandist - and that's exactly why you're so insecure about being called on such. That is total bullshit. Nothing in there was supported in any way, and much of it is clearly false. The fact that it accords with your pet fantasies is just that, and it is sad that a moderator would exploit his position to indulge in this kind of peurile, dishonorable behavior. Bullshit. Obvious propaganda does not merit a serious response. I have been clear on that point from the beginning of this exchange, and you have offered nothing but the baldest of horseshit in your attempt to hector me about it. Your standard post format is a total mess, with poor delineation of what is quote and what is your commentary, constant inclusion of irrelevant and unsupported assertions, and glaring errors of fact and interpretation. Your posts read like some kind of UFO conspiracy website from the GeoCities era of the web. It's a mystery, why you think you're intelligent or present an exemplary posting style, especially in the context of so much clear refutation of your inflated self-image. At this point, I'm just assuming that you've gone senile and are addressing figments of your fertile imagination.
quadraphonics, et al, I see I've made an enemy. (COMMENT) Yes, there is some analysis and evaluation. Not everyone will look at the same set of facts and come to the same conclusion. I had a similar problem with the Intelligence Forum before the invasion of Iraq; on the issue of WMD. But I turned out to be correct. Specifically state, clear and concisely, what you object to - one at a time, and I'll try to answer them. I see post number 44 was not to your standard. Very Best Regards, R
Hey, can we get this thread back on track, please? I'm starting to get quite a bit concerned about this Syria situation. The US and Russia can't seem to agree on what to do, and The Sunday Times reports that a Russian missile shot down the Turkish F-4 and may have been fired by Russian technicians. Also, am I wrong to be skeptical of Georgia not joining NATO? Didn't Merkel say NATO would let Georgia in? Haven't NATO and Georgia been "flirting" for a while?
What difference does it make which crisis ends it all? We're up to our ears in every conceivable kind of shit, and politically paralyzed. Incapable of even discussing, let alone implementing, the available solutions. Cheer up. Read X-Events the collapse of everything by John Casti.
areasys, et al, These are two different issues. Syria and the Arab Spring is almost mutually exclusive to the issue of NATO/OTAN expansion. While the root causes come from the same poisonous tree, the volatility, lethality, and political-military conditions are much different. In this case, I will speak to the Syrian issue and defer the NATO/OTAN for another posting. (COMMENT) There are two nations that have a Tier 1 vested interest in the outcome in Syria: The Russian Federation and Iran. You'll notice that I did not say the US. Tier 3 Issues (Ancillary): The US has not really invest anything of substance in Syria for nearly four decades. The US concerns for Syria pertain to the political-military impact is has on the security of Israel and the issue of occupied Syrian territory, and the effects it has had on the stabilization of Lebanon. Until the Arab-Spring, the US has had little, if any, real concern for the repressive nature of the Syrian Government. Syria is to Russia as Israel was to the US. For many years, Syria the key ally in that immediate terrain. Bounded by Turkey, Iraq, Jodan, Israel and Lebanon, all of whom have had a recent or ongoing favorable pol-mil relationship with the US, the Russians tend to be suspicious of the US intentions in that sphere; with the influence of the Russian Federation being gradually squeezed out of any significance. Russia wants the status quo of the Bashar al-Assad Regime. Both Russia and China have opposed US sponsored intervention; seeing the US as merely jumping on the band wagon after the fact. Again, the Chinese and Russians exercised VETO powers over the draft United Nations Security Council resolution condemning Syria. The general consensus of the major opposing Powers is to let the Syrians choose their own destiny without US interference. The US has since withdrawn most of the Embassy Staff. The US does not want the issue of Syria to aggravate US-Russian or US-Chinese relations in a counterproductive manner. It simply isn't worth it. In every event, such as this, where a Super Power has a vested interest in the protection of a given territory (Syria in this case), there are bound to be incidents of a lethal nature. The Russians are notorious for shooting first and asking questions later on matters of aerial intrusion. The recent SAM shot downing a mTurkish Military aircraft is just on such example. It is to be expected, and demonstrates the volatile nature and seriousness of the vested interest. The US concern, at this point, is that the end result is not something worse than the Assad Regime. While Assad has a better than even chance of surviving this uprising, the Regime will not give-up without a fight having seen the outcomes of the former leaders in Libya and Egypt. The US (and several allied nations) will not shed any tears over the fall of the Ba'ath Party and Assad Regime, what comes after may be more of a threat to regional security that what exists today. If Syria fractures, it may re-open lawless territories for estranged terrorist activities to reconstitute. Additionally, it would leave an opening for the Iranians to establish and even greater foothold in Syria than it already has. The Russian nature of the iron fist may be able to suppress these less than advantageous alternatives, but their plan is unclear. Both the new Egyptian and Libyan governments have been less than favorable in the eyes of the allied nations. In Egypt, the final face of the government has not been revealed. There may yet be a fight between the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF) and the newly elected Muslim Brotherhood (a know Islamic terrorist organization) President Mohammed Morsi. In Libya, International Criminal Court (ICC) staffers have been detained; tribal violence has erupted, the Tabu Militia is up in arms over the disposition of government forces, and there seems to be a interim coalition government, made-up of an Islamist party that parliament and two other secular parties. (We'll have to see how that works out.) Syria is beyond US help, for now. It is in their own hands. And maybe that is how it should be. But if it becomes a problem, it will be up to the Russians to clean it up. As I said before the White House recalled the Ambassador, we should stay as far out of the way as we can; hands-off. Most Respectfully, R
Sorry for continually bumping this thread, guys. I'm just scared. I look at all of these events going on in the world, like the recent sabre-rattling by Iran and the US over the Strait of Hormuz. I look at these events and wonder, "is this the one that will escalate to nuclear war?" I just feel powerless. What, reasonably, can I do to help bring the world to zero nuclear weapons? I know there are petitions by Global Zero, the Ploughshares Fund, etc. But is there anything else? Any suggestions?
That is better, but still a strange POV as most think the source (Bloomberg) unlikely to be pushing "pro-CCP propaganda." But you can believe Bloomberg is some agent for the CCP if you want to and I can´t stop you. Yes. Your context was to refute what RoccoR had posted and later in this post you explicitly state that. This is why I pointed out that RoccoR had only facts in his post and already twice now have asked you to explicitly cite at least one of his errors you were refuting. Not asking for your analysis – just for you to specifically telling what part of RoccoR´s post was not factual. Of course his and my speculations about what these facts imply for the future can not be refuted or supported. Again, for third time, what did he state that was wrong? I agree you can and do hold a different POV about what the current facts imply is likely to happen in the future. Your having a different POV does not make ours wrong. This is so blatantly false that I must stoop to your language level and say “Bull Shit.” Essentially all of my original posts (except replies) have a very clear and rigid format shown in blue as follows: {Optional introductory comment, usually tying what follows to the thread.} A quote, clearly indicated as such by: “… quoted text …” From: {link to the source of the quote} Billy T comment: My comments on the quoted text plus some projections of what it may imply for the future I dare say that no one else posting at sciforums has such a standard self-imposed format and clear “delineation of what is quote and what is your commentary” So again: Bull Shit!!!
areasys, et al, Good Question. (COMMENT) The Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) is, currently, the mechanism for the control, containment and proliferation of the technology. It is a 20th Century solution, created by 20th Century Thinkers, for a 20th Century problem of their making. There is, in one of the more recent articles within the magazine call "Foreign Policy" that runs along a counter-perspective to yours. Dr Zenko is with the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), and Fellow for Conflict Prevention; with expertise in conflict prevention; national security policy; military planning and operations; nuclear weapons policy. Michael Cohen is a Senior Research Fellow at the New America Foundation and serves on the board of the National Security Network; and has taught at Columbia University's School of International and Public Affairs. Now their view is diametrically opposed to the position generally expressed by the Administration, the General Staff and career Foreign Service. It is generally the position that : (Paraphrasing) Leon Panetta (SECDEF) expresses the position in a nutshell: “from terrorism to nuclear proliferation; from rogue states to cyber attacks; from revolutions in the Middle East, to economic crisis in Europe, to the rise of new powers such as China and India; all of these changes represent security, geopolitical, economic, and demographic shifts in the international order that make the world more unpredictable, more volatile and, yes, more dangerous." "Clinton (SECSTATE) reinforced the point by claiming that America resides today in a “very complex, dangerous world.” Reference: http://www.foreignaffairs.com/artic...-and-michael-a-cohen/clear-and-present-safety In order to set new foreign policy, and develop a different way of conducting diplomacy in the areas of conflict prevention; national security policy; military planning and operations; nuclear weapons policy, we need to gradually replace the 20th Century thinkers in the House and Senate, as well as, encourage the Presidential candidates to incorporate 21st Century foreign service professionals to implant newer strategies; extricating America from volatile relationships and situations that will entangle the US in dangerous confrontations. The citizen of today, concerned about such matters would never vote for an incumbent politician. Most Respectfully, R
A lot here has been written about Indo-Pak nuke spat. WEll,India would not initiate itb but would not keep quite too. It solid fuel missiles can be fired quickly in retalation, which will be there before before UNO etc rush in. Pakistan can wound India but not cripple it. But India can cripple Pakistan with just a couple of strikes. Pakistan is not too irrational not to see this truth. So such a spat will never happen.
This request to Quad for at least one example of RoccoR´s false posted items was repeated two time mores: Perhaps reason Quad refuses to support his claim that RoccoR´s post is (in part at least) false is that Quad does not know what is fact and what is propaganda? RoccoR´s post was facts. Here is sample of Chinese propaganda in interesting 3 minute video that show how modern China is, yet with great unspoiled natural beauty: http://www.wimp.com/momentschina/
Why are you repeatedly attempting to hector me with this malicious re-editing job, which you've also cross-posted into another thread already? I said my piece on this here a while back and left it at that. Your attempts to bully me - and drive this thread off-topic and onto your pet China fixation - are equal parts offensive and pathetic. Try to get a fucking grip.
Attacks on me are not a subsititute for backing up your false claim that Roccor´s post about China not wanting or needing war to win etc. was propaganda, and not factual. For the fourth time, I ask you to try to support your false claim. Call that "bulling" if you like, but it sure seems you cannot find any support for you claim or even tell what part was false. If you don´t want to be asked a fifth time, just admit you were in error.
For the whatever-th time now: this stuff has been asked and answered, in this thread. You're simply hectoring me here, and relying on misrepresentation and insinuation to do so.
No it has not been. If I missed it, then give link to post where you specifically identified what RocoR had falsely posted.
You have received all the response you are going to get. I never agreed to treat RoccoR's propaganda output as serious scholarship as you demand. If you don't like that, well, I can't say that I particularly care. Further badgering me about this is not going to get you anywhere.
I never demanded that. I only asked you to specifically identify even one part of Roccor´s post that was false as you claimed.
I have said what I want to say about RoccoR's output. I do not care whether you find that satisfactory or not. You should stop badgering me on this topic - which is not relevant to the thread topic, as usual.
areasys, I share your concerns. One thing we all can do is start asking some larger questions about the relationship between science and society. Nuclear weapons are a symptom of a larger issue. We are a species with a 5,000 year long history of consistently fighting wars with ever more powerful weapons. Every so often we experience a mass insanity outbreak and use whatever power we have available to destroy whatever we just got done building. There's no evidence we have escaped this pattern which goes back to the very beginnings of humanity. Even if we could magically take nukes off the table, the same basic equation remains. We are ever more powerful, but not ever more sane. Knowledge/power development proceeds rapidly, and is perhaps accelerating, while maturity inches along at best. Thus, a gap between power and judgment is ever widening. Redirecting much of science to the study of the human mind is one way to proceed. If we could become reliably sane, then we'd have no reason to fear knowledge and it's products. I'm afraid that for those living today, especially the younger members, we have to face the reality that chaos has been a fact of human life since the beginning. Do your best and then forget the rest remains good advice.
Hey, guys. Sorry I was gone for so long. I was busy. Anyway, I know it's easy to say, right now, that the risk of a nuclear war is low. No leader wakes up in the morning and decides to start a nuclear war. What I'm worried about is escalation and people acting irrationally or on incomplete information. Things like, say, a repeat of Able Archer 83 or, again, a complete madman rising to power (remember, Michele Bachmann - in this case, a madwoman - was, for a while, in the lead in the Republican race). Again, Russian leaders have been rattling their sabres against NATO and threatened pre-emptive strikes on missile defense sites. Also, like I said, Georgia and Ukraine want to join NATO, which makes Russia very unhappy. These things all seem manageable now, but what I'm worried about is that they could escalate. I'm just wondering: am I crazy for being worried about these things? I mean, does anyone else worry about them? Is it as bad now as it was, say, 20 or 30 years ago? As a side note, and I really shudder to even think about this, but if a nuclear war were to occur, is it a known fact that it would *wipe out* humanity? Have we learned anything or do we know anything to suggest that human beings could survive, say, a nuclear winter? Again, I sincerely hope such a situation never occurs, but I would feel a bit better knowing that it wouldn't end humanity. Just...you know...severely cripple it. But yeah, I'm just wondering, should I even be worrying about this stuff? After seeing one of those '80's nuclear war movies, I've found myself completely unable to really enjoy life. What's the point, I find myself thinking, of trying to be happy and enjoy the world if it can all be destroyed so easily?
LOL. Have you been missing out on news? Georgia invaded South Ossetia, which drew support of Russia. If Georgia joins NATO, Russia will never invade it. If there is anyone more likely to invade in any scenario, it is Georgia. And frankly escalation of world conflict due to such local problem, will not happen.
